CSPAN - Washington Journal Evelyn Farkas

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 3, 2025 12:39-13:08 - CSPAN

28:57

Washington Journal Evelyn Farkas

Participants

Appearances

mimi geerges

cspan 03:17

Clips

evelyn farkas

00:11

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		democracy unfiltered.
		In a nation divided, a rare moment of unity.
		This fall, C-SPAN presents Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins in a town where partisan fighting prevails.
		One table, two leaders, one goal.
		to find common ground.
		This fall, ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including Cox.
		When connection is needed most, Cox is there to help.
		Bringing affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls clubs, and support to veterans.
		Whenever and wherever it matters most, we'll be there.
		Cox supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We are joined now by Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute, talking about the Ukraine-Russia ceasefire efforts.
		Evelyn, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thank you for having me, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So diplomats met yesterday in Turkey.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What happened?
unidentified		Well, they agreed on some prisoner exchanges, but there was no real progress made in terms of getting to a durable peace between Russia and Ukraine.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so a couple of things have happened that we want to talk about.
		So first is this drone attack.
		This is the front page of the Washington Times.
		Ukraine assault shifts war's momentum.
		Quote, Russian Pearl Harbor puts pressure on Putin to take peace talk seriously.
unidentified		So what was this Russian Pearl Harbor?
		Well, first, it wasn't really a Pearl Harbor because remember, Russia attacked Ukraine starting in 2014 and then full frontal assault in 2022 where they attacked the civilian population of Ukraine.
		So this wasn't an attack out of the blue.
		However, it was a surprise shock attack that had strategic impact.
		It had strategic impact psychologically and according to the various estimates, up to as many as a third of Russia's carrier strike capability.
		So the cruise missile strike capability was knocked out.
		So about 10, the New York Times is estimating about 10 bombers.
		This is significant, not just in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, Mimi.
		It's significant in terms of Russia being the number one adversary of the United States and our European allies threatening not just Ukraine, but other countries in the region.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that's a video that you just saw on your screen of that drone attack.
		So apparently some spies snuck the drones in and then remote controls did the attack all at once.
		And these are some pretty far away areas that they were able to strike.
unidentified		Right.
		I mean, what it demonstrates is, first of all, a high level of sophistication in terms of intelligence capability, in terms of military operations, and then also sophisticated strategy.
		The Ukrainians started planning this.
		I'm not sure whether it was over a year ago, but certainly months ago.
		They smuggled these drones into Russia proper and very far into Russia proper.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		And so they clearly had help.
unidentified		I would imagine they had some help inside.
		But the Ukrainians are saying all the operatives were exfiltrated.
		I can't believe that that's true, and I'm sure the Russians don't believe that that's true.
		Nevertheless, they then launched a simultaneous attack remotely.
		The drones took off from these boxes.
		They opened up.
		The boxes were launched on trucks.
		The boxes opened up, again, remotely, simultaneously, and attacked these airfields, multiple airfields, three or four, I believe.
		And I think our intelligence community is probably doing the estimates as well in terms of the damage.
		But it's undeniable that there's been severe damage, and I'm sure the Kremlin is assessing their options now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		There's also this on CNN.
		Ukraine says it has struck bridge connecting Russia to Crimea with underwater explosives.
		And you can see, it's kind of hard to see, but you can see that explosion right here on your screen, if you can see that, that's on CNN.
		Has the momentum shifted in this war because of these two attacks?
unidentified		I mean, has everything changed?
		I wouldn't call it a game changer, but I think in retrospect, this will be a turning point.
		The attack on the bridge connecting Crimea with the Russian mainland, the Kerch, so-called Kerch Bridge, this was the third time the bridge was attacked.
		Maybe this one will be the one that really damages the bridge so much so that the Kremlin gives up on having that bridge there.
		I doubt it.
		I think for Putin, this is really a point of pride.
		When he put that bridge up, he was there to christen it.
		Having said that, this is important also psychologically coming after the militarily and psychologically significant drone attack.
		This is a psychological attack much more than a military one, although they do use that bridge for resupply and for civilian transport.
		The reality is that I think the Kremlin is going to have to stop and assess because they are now, they've been damaged significantly in their ability to hit Ukraine.
		And Ukraine is showing that they have cards up their sleeves, so to speak, that they have more surprise.
		Maybe there are more surprises coming.
		We don't know.
		But they're being very proactive and they're taking the initiative.
		So if I were the Russians, I would hurry to the negotiating table.
		The other thing, Mimi, is, and maybe you're going to get to this, other things that the United States can threaten, sanctions, increased military aid to you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I do definitely want to get to sanctions, but what do you make of reports that the United States was not notified of this drone attack before it happened?
unidentified		I think that's normal.
		You know, the Ukrainians haven't been notifying America, as far as we know, when they've taken proactive military operations like this in the past.
		So for example, when they launched an effort into the Russian territory and seized the territory, the Russian territory of Kerch, which they recently lost, but that was over a year ago.
		When they did that, they also didn't check with us to our knowledge, or at least at least what was reported in the media.
		You know, the Ukrainians, in order for this to be successful, they have to maintain operational security.
		And I think there's a lot of understanding on the Ukrainian side now that they're kind of on their own.
		And so they are taking whatever independent action they can very quietly.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you've got a question for our guest, Evelyn Farkas, she'll be with us for the next 30 minutes.
		You can give us a call about the Russia-Ukraine war.
		That is Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		And Independents, 202748, 8002.
		Sanctions.
unidentified		Yeah.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Russia is currently under sanctions.
unidentified		That's correct.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Have they worked so far?
unidentified		Well, they've put strain on the Russian economy.
		So the Russian interest rate is at 21% or so.
		Inflation's at 10%.
		They are clearly stressed.
		They're using their foreign reserves.
		They are reliant heavily.
		I think about 70% of their energy sales are going to China and India combined.
		If these new sanctions that Senator Graham very helpfully drafted up and got Senator Blumenthal to co-sponsor, got 82 senators to sign on, if these new sanctions go into effect, they would have a significant impact on Russia's economic situation because they would include sanctions on any countries buying that fuel from Russia.
		So oil and gas.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Who's buying fuel from Russia?
unidentified		China and India primarily.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But also Europe, right?
unidentified		Also Europe.
		And so the Europeans have said we're ready to also join the United States in these secondary sanctions and we're ready to also, frankly, inflict or take more pain in their economy.
		What do we know about Russia's conditions for ending this war?
		They're maximalist.
		They haven't changed since the beginning.
		Vladimir Putin wants to control Ukraine, doesn't want Ukraine to be a sovereign state and certainly not a democratic state on his border.
		He has a neo-imperial vision.
		He wants to recreate the Russian Empire, starting with Ukraine.
		Frankly, you know, Moldova and Georgia, all the former Soviet states are targets in his writings and in his statements.
		And, you know, Europe isn't safe either in terms of his desire to weaken our allies and the United States itself.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But is he coming to the table with, give me the entire country and then I'm going to take other parts of Europe?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, he's not saying that publicly.
unidentified		He's talking about root causes, and to him, root causes are that Ukraine wants to be independent, that Ukraine doesn't recognize that Ukraine should be part of the Russian Federation.
		So, and also that Ukraine should have its ability to defend itself against Russian attacks.
		So Russia does not want Ukraine to join any kind of military alliance.
		NATO, Russia does not want Ukraine to have a guarantee from the United States that's bilateral.
		That would prevent Russia again from using its military against Ukraine.
		So these are, and, I'm sorry, territory.
		I mean, the Russian government has indicated, given no indication of wanting to, you know, compromise and give up any territory to Ukraine.
		In fact, they've asked for more, more than they control on the ground militarily.
		So we have not seen any movement in terms of Putin's criteria for coming to an agreement.
		The Ukrainians, I think they're open to compromise.
		You know, this is not something they're talking about publicly, but I would imagine that they are discussing this with the Trump administration.
		And so they are willing to compromise on certain things.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The Russians are asking for elections in Ukraine in the next 100 days.
		So within 100 days, they want a new leader.
		Why is that?
unidentified		Well, they want Vladimir, they don't want Zelensky.
		So Vladimir Zelensky is an adversary, a very clever adept, as we just saw from the latest attack, adversary of the Kremlin.
		And Putin wants to do everything he can to discredit him.
		And so calling for new elections also discredits the current leader.
		You cannot hold elections right now.
		Even the people who don't like President Zelensky inside Ukraine, the opposition forces, the opposition parties, they insist.
		And I was just in Ukraine several months ago.
		They insisted that we cannot hold elections in Ukraine today, they said, because of the war, because of the lack of infrastructure.
		It would take a lot more than 100 days to be able to organize a credible, valid election in Ukraine.
		Having said that, I think President Zelensky, his party, all of the Ukrainians believe the minute the war ends, that would be the next step.
		But you need to put planning into place to make sure that that can be done credibly.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, the Trump administration has threatened to essentially walk away from peace efforts if there's no progress.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What impact do you think that that would have?
unidentified		Well, it would lengthen the duration of the war.
		It would mean that more people would die on both sides.
		So it would be regrettable.
		I think that President Trump has a real opportunity right now.
		I mean, it's been handed to him in large part by the Ukrainians with these operations, but also by Senator Graham.
		He should take that opportunity and really push Putin, push the Kremlin.
		I'm sure that right now, President Putin is under incredible pressure internally.
		And President Trump can take advantage of that and try to force him to compromise.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What are those levers?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is it just additional sanctions?
unidentified		Additional sanctions, showing commitment to Ukraine, additional arms to Ukraine, more diplomatic isolation for Russia.
		They should be isolated.
		They are attacking people, civilians.
		You see what Ukraine's doing.
		They're hitting valid military targets, not the Russian people.
		And I think that's an important distinction that we should continue to make.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to callers, and we'll start with John in Denell, Florida, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yeah, I'd like to ask the guests a couple of questions.
		She first said that Russia started the war.
		We know that's not true.
		Her boss, well, rest in peace, John McCain, actually went over there with Lindsey Graham and a couple others, and they did the maiden coupe and started this whole hula.
		The other question I wanted to ask her is, you know, we keep talking about Ukraine having some kind of upper hander position.
		They have no air power.
		I called in three and a half years ago when the war started.
		I said, Ukraine cannot win this war.
		They don't have any airpower.
		I was in the military.
		You can't win a war without air power.
		It's just impossible.
		So they'll never win this war, and they really don't have a position of strength.
		And the last thing, and the third thing I'd like to say is you said Ukraine's hitting valid military targets.
		Well, you talked about the one bridge that got blown up, but you didn't talk about the other bridge that got blown up where they blew it up with a train and killed 28 people.
		So I'd like you to answer that if you can, please.
		Thanks.
		So first of all, I think what we see here is that air power, use of air power is changing.
		And the Ukrainians have an advantage here.
		They're the smaller party.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		It's true.
unidentified		They don't have all those long-range bombers that the Russians have.
		But they just demonstrated that asymmetric use of drones, strategic use of drones, can take out that advantage that Russia has.
		So that's not to say that Russia still doesn't have significant air power.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		It does.
unidentified		It's not to say that over time Russia couldn't perhaps win over Ukraine.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		But I think it's a toss-up.
unidentified		I would not bet against Ukraine.
		And the reason is because it's existential for the Ukrainian people, whereas it's not existential for the Russian people.
		I think that's important to understand.
		Putin cannot, he cannot call up a mass mobilization of the Russian people without some risk to him politically.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		That's why he's been calling in the North Koreans.
unidentified		That's why there are Chinese conscripts.
		I mean, that's why he's paying the Russians to go in and fight.
		So I would not bet against Ukraine here.
		I do think that both sides have their weaknesses, and over time, it becomes harder for both sides.
		But this puts some time on the scale for Ukraine.
		The other question now I'm going to forget about the bridge, look, I'm sure that the Ukrainians tried hard to avoid civilian casualties because they very clearly today, when they talked about the Kerch Bridge being exploded, they made the point that there were no civilian casualties.
		The Ukrainians have tried very hard, whereas the Russians have deliberately, starting in Chechnya, in Syria, and in Ukraine, deliberately attacked maternity awards, UN convoys, civilian apartment buildings.
		So there's just no comparison.
		And then the next question was about creating the war.
		Okay, so the Ukrainian people, essentially, in 2014, when they saw that the Russia-friendly government was pulling Ukraine out of the European Union, where Ukraine was making moves to join the European Union.
		And last minute, Yanukovych, who was President Yanukovych, who was close to Putin, said, okay, we're not going to go for the EU right now.
		The people went to the streets and demonstrated.
		That's a normal thing to do in a democracy.
		They demonstrated.
		But eventually the demonstrations got so big that Yanukovych used force, used military force.
		And then the backlash was such that the political leaders in Ukraine decided that they needed a change, and they brokered a compromise, which would allow Yanukovych to stay in the country, but they would hold new elections and they would determine what they would do with regard to whether they would join the EU, whether they would join NATO, the future of the country.
evelyn farkas ▲ ● ▼		So it was brokered by the West and Russia.
unidentified		Russia had an ombudsman there.
		But Yanukovych got nervous and he fled.
		So it wasn't a coup.
		It was actually something that was decided upon by the political leadership in Ukraine with Russia, the European Union, and the United States negotiating with them to create a bridge towards elections.
		They held those elections.
		President Poroshenko was the winner, if you remember.
		And then Russia invaded because Russia decided they didn't want this to be negotiated through the will of the Ukrainian people.
		They were going to force Ukraine to stay in the Russian orbit.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Carol in Elgin, Texas.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, and thank you, guest Ms. Parkas, for being on.
		And I wanted to ask about and get her opinions on the support you have amongst Republicans for Putin, and particularly amongst the Republican broadcast networks like Fox and other persons who used to work for Fox that openly support Vladimir Putin in this.
		And I mean, even when the second term of Donald Trump began, he incorrectly got up and stated, I think the previous caller followed this line, got up and stated that, oh no, Ukraine attacked Russia and all this stuff.
		And then there was the open breakdown in the Oval Office and the rant and rave that went on because of the vice president about you're going to, where Donald Trump was ranting and raving, you're going to start World War III and all this other stuff.
		And I just wonder, it appears things have changed, but do you think things have changed enough that we will become more subtly on the side of Ukraine and the United States?
		We know, we know, and by all appearances, NATO, the rest of NATO, is carrying on with their support of Ukraine.
		It appears that the United States balked at first at the beginning of Trump's term.
		And I wanted to get your comments on that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Carol.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Yeah, no, I think it's a really good question, and he made a lot of good points in there.
		The support for Putin, for the support for Ukraine in the U.S. Senate and even in the House, is still majority strong.
		It's strong.
		82 people, 82 members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, evenly split, are in support of Senator Graham and Senator Blumenthal's bipartisan bill to lobby sanctions, to levy sanctions on Russia.
		So that is indisputable.
		There are, however, yes, members of the Congress and certainly TV personalities who will repeat soundbites, talking points that come really straight from Kremlin television.
		And that is deeply regrettable.
		It's frankly borderline, I mean, it runs counter to U.S. interests, and it does make things more difficult.
		I will say, however, that the caller is correct, that there was a lot of alarm initially with regard to President Trump's comments initially and the White House meeting, the public meeting with President Zelensky.
		What we now see is that President Trump does seem to understand that Russia is the problem here, that Russia's not cooperating with his plan to bring peace as soon as possible and in a durable fashion, right?
		So I am optimistic that President Trump will understand, and President Graham knows this, President Graham, Senator Graham knows this very well, and he is somebody who I think President Trump listens to and trusts, and that's important as well.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Eric in Palm Beach, Florida, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Eric.
unidentified		Thank you.
		First of all, let me say I really respect today's guest, Ms. Farkas.
		I'm happy that you're on.
		Listen, I know you're the expert.
		I've done some reading on this.
		And I think part of the case that you talk about is being overstated.
		And part of it is being understated and hardly stated at all.
		And that's why I'm calling.
		I've done some extensive reading, and I've gone back into the archives, the National Security Archives housed at Washington University, where there's documentation dating back to January of 1991 of multinational negotiations between Germany,
		Britain, France, Russia, and the United States, where there was, at the time, unification of Germany, conditionally, about the expansion of NATO and the limitation that NATO would not expand very far eastward, if at all, beyond Germany.
		This is a point of contention.
		Some people deny that that ever happened.
		In the archives, it shows that there's evidence.
		German newspapers have investigated it.
		There was an ongoing guarantee.
		And I think this is the understated part, that Russia's motivation in this is that they don't want a situation like the Cuban Missile Crisis, where NATO weaponry is installed right on their border.
		And I think that's really at the crux of this.
		They don't want NATO in there in any way, shape, or form.
		They want a buffer zone.
		I don't think there really is evidence that Russia is out to go on the march taking over Ukraine.
		They just want it neutral like it's been for a long time since 2014.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Eric, let's take that up.
unidentified		Okay, so first of all, with regard to whether there was a guarantee made or not, I just take James Baker's word for it, Secretary Baker.
		He was involved in those negotiations in his interviews that he's given his authorized biographers.
		He has said that there was no guarantee made.
		Many other Bush administration officials have made the same point.
		I have to believe them.
		Even so, even if we had made some kind of guarantee that we wouldn't put forces in the eastern part of NATO, it doesn't excuse Russia using military force to alter the borders of its neighbors, starting with Georgia in 2008, which it invaded.
		Russia still occupies 20% of Georgia.
		And then 2014, the invasion and annexation, first time since World War II, using military force of Crimea in Ukraine.
		And of course, starting the war, which is still ongoing in Donbass.
		So it doesn't excuse anything Russia did.
		If they were feeling threatened, and they did express this, they had every ability, and I was part of these conversations, to discuss confidence-building mechanisms.
		We had all kinds of arms control agreements.
		We invited Russia to consultations regularly.
		But Putin actually does want to take over Ukraine, does not want Ukraine to be a sovereign democratic state on its borders.
		Putin has been very clear in what he said.
		He became even more enamored with this idea of recreating the Russian Empire during COVID, according to most sources.
		And so I think it's indisputable that his vision right now runs counter to our vision.
		Frankly, at the end of the day, we're probably going to need a more pragmatic leadership in the Kremlin to make a deal, to make a compromise, to allow this, you know, to allow stability in Europe to persist or to be re-reinstituted.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, absent of regime change in Moscow, do you see this war ending anytime soon?
unidentified		It's possible, but again, it would be something close to regime change because the military and the security forces, the people around Putin, would have to say to him, listen, boss, we can't do this anymore.
		Let's make a compromise.
		And he could then stay in power if he's willing to be pragmatic.
		Now, I will say on the flip side, Ukrainians would have a hard time trusting Vladimir Putin.
		That's why it's more likely if they pick someone else to make the deal that it might stick also on the Ukrainian side.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And so do you think that this is just going to keep going on and on and on indefinitely as long as the Ukrainians are still able to fight?
unidentified		Yes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's David, Louisville, Kentucky, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Good morning.
		And I want to compliment your guest today.
		She's been a great representative of the United States for peace in Eastern Europe.
		My question concerns the recent election in Poland.
		What does your guest think about the outcome there?
		Well, I think there it demonstrates that, you know, there's still a fight on for the, you know, for democracy.
		And in Poland, there are still, just like, frankly, in the United States and elsewhere, there are still people who want a silver bullet, who want the strong, more autocratic executive to rescue them from their day-to-day problems and, frankly, everything that's going on globally.
		So, you know, I think it is a struggle internally in Poland, just like it is elsewhere.
		So it remains to be seen how it will shake out.
		But clearly, the government of Poland wants to demonstrate that they still have the confidence of the people in calling for elections.
		And then everything will have to play out politically.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Roseanne in Nashville, Tennessee.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Republican, good morning, Roseanne.
unidentified		Good morning.
		You know, to me, Putin is the hero in this scenario.
		He's routing out ASAF Nazis, led by our own wicked CIA.
		And for 75 years, Ukraine was used for money laundering, child trafficking, and organ culling for adrenochrome, using young blood for longevity drugs.
		And those patents exist.
		There's no point in arguing it.
		We can continue to kill off Russian leaders who expose that truth in videos of children that have been cut to pieces and support the UN World Economic Forum and NIH who put biolabs in Putin's backyard.
		Or I pray Putin takes over Ukraine and makes it into a Christian nation devoid of LGBQTI perversion.
		I feel he will do a far better job at that than the USA ever could or would.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, we'll get a response.
unidentified		Well, I don't think, I mean, there's so much there.
		First of all, the caller was repeating a lot of conspiracy theories.
		With regard to children, if you want to talk about children, we know that the Russians abducted hundreds of Ukrainian children and brought them against their will into Russia and they're still holding them there.
		The International Criminal Court put out an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin on that basis.
		The Russian government is running, I mean, it's an onslaught against human rights, the way that they're waging the war.
		And frankly, you know, I just don't even know what to say to all the conspiracy theories.
		But clearly, the idea that Vladimir Putin would rescue children or save people is, you know, I mean, it's...
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Has there been any progress on getting back those abducted Ukrainian children?
unidentified		So...
		So in the last round of negotiations in Istanbul yesterday, it sounds like that was discussed, that the Ukrainians raised it as a stipulation, as something they would like to see addressed in the near future.
		So it's clearly being raised, but there's been no progress.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Timothy Waldorf, Maryland, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Timothy.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'd like to thank our guests.
		I would just like to say the real reason why Zelensky didn't tell Trump what the plan was about the drone attack is because Trump would have told Putin because they're so close in line.
		And I'd like a response from the guests about that, how Zelensky is doing all the texts about the 9 technology.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		About why Zelensky didn't tell Trump about the drone attack because he doesn't trust him.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's what the caller is saying.
unidentified		I mean, I think the Ukrainians don't trust anyone right now.

▲